So my brother stands up in your classroom and hollers that you're a pedophile, and you can discipline him, but if I yell it in through the open window, you can't discipline me?
Well, I certainly admire your staunch defence of my rights there, Principle Gropesalot.
The clear intent of both students was to harass the teachers and cause disruption by undermining their authority. The publication was targeted at an audience (their peers), and the effect was felt inside the school.
At this point, I could be describing: posting on the intartubes; putting up posters near the school with the same content; waving a placard outside the school gates; standing outside the window and yelling.
In each case, the action was done outside the school, but the effects were felt inside it, and that is the salient point.
Schools must be able to respond to actions that effect them by disciplining or excluding the student. That's independent of any civil or criminal actions brought against the students by the libelled individuals, and the police and prosecution services.
Can we seriously countenance that a school can discipline or exclude a student for standing up in a classroom and yelling that Principal Peterson is a kiddie fiddler, but that it can't take action if the student moves three feet and yells the accusation in through the open window?
If so, then schools might as well hand out copies of Lord of the Flies as their conduct rules.
Count 49 is an assertion of facts, not a claim for relief.
They successfully claimed: Tortious Interference With Contract; Contributory Copyright Infringement; Vicarious Copyright Infringement.
They failed in their claims of: Violation of the Digital Millennium; Trademark Infringement; Unfair Competition (where they claimed to have been damaged but couldn't prove any damages); Unjust Enrichment (where they did attempt to claim lost revenues, but only because - they said, but could not prove - people capped and left, not because Blizzard chose to ban them, as the GP asserted).
So, OK, little from column A, little from column B. The core issue remains that of ownership and Title 117; just about everything else is a distraction.
If I had to call it, I've have given them claim 4, the DMCA violation, since that's the more pertinent legislation.
Note carefully that Blizzard's argument isn't against Title 117, it's that their EULA means that the purchaser doesn't "own" the copy that they bought, and so the enjoys no Title 117 protection. That's the significant precedent here.
Slightly less cynically, isn't this (in like-for-like terms) trading a general purpose CPU core for a specialised GPU one? It's not like we'll get more bang for our buck, we'll just get more floating point bangs, and fewer integer ones.
I'll choose Microsoft for an example, although this sort of boilerplate is fairly standard. I quote from the license terms for Microsoft Office:
The software is licensed, not sold. [...] You may not:
work around any technical limitations in the software;
use the software in any way that is against the law;
rent, lease or lend the software;
The first user of the software may make a one-time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a
third party.
And many other restrictions.
So Microsoft can (successfully, in the Central District of California) sue you for copyright infringement the moment you load Office into RAM after: fixing their product for them; using it for any purpose that is "against the law" (which law?); borrowing it from anyone; buying a 2nd hand copy.
You think that's ridiculous? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California doesn't think so. They think that the EULA gives Microsoft exactly that right.
This is not hyperbole or speculation; this is now established case law in that District (pending appeal).
You don't think Microsoft would ever exercise this power? OK, pick a different name then. Adobe. Apple. SCO. Choose your poison.
I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.
It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM is a copyright violation.
Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?
Oh, pfft to you. AT&T will just lower the SUPAR SEKRIT acceptable usage cap until they've kicked everyone off the "unlimited" plan. A child could see it coming.
Current customers are grandfathered in and can continue to receive what they signed up for.
Say, by any chance did they sign up for an "unlimited" plan with a "reasonable use" caveat? You know, it's "unlimited" up until you hit the limit, which is entirely up to AT&T and not guaranteed by the contract. So it's 5GB this month. Next month it's 3GB. Then 1GB. Then you're a filthy resource hogging parasite if you use your "unlimited" connection to download a couple of email headers, and AT&T exercise their reserved right to terminate your contract. That sort of plan?
Fair point, but the reason that mechanical measurements are usually given as evidence is that the witness is impeachable. When it's your job to stop people from speeding, you're going to see speeders everywhere. Subjective opinion cannot, axiomatically, be objective.
Mmm. I was about to go off on a rant about how commercial publishers are in the business of selling stories, not reporting significant truths, when I remembered that sometimes the two overlap.
Mind you, "independent" doesn't mean unbiased. Even notionally non-commercial entities like the BBC show a strong bias in their reporting - the BBC really is stuffed with champaign socialists and middle class activists. 90% of "news" is press releases with an editorial slant, and half of the rest is inane vox populi. Still, there's that last 5%, which just wouldn't have the same impact posted on AngryCitizenJournalist.blogspot.com
Not a bad rant, but in a fiat economy, money is essentially a fiction. A trillion-dollars is no more meaningful a figure than a hojillion dollars.
What's significant is assets - the housing bubble which you lament left us with plenty of cheap real estate, which is a good thing - and work: whether people do it, what they do, and how efficiently they do it.
There are plenty of Americans who could be working on manned space exploration. If they're not doing that, what would you suggest they do instead? Till the fields? Watch Oprah re-runs all day while collecting welfare?
We can afford manned space travel. We can even afford government funded space travel. The only question is what we give up to free up the people to work on it. I'd say giving up Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good start.
Now, now, this is the EU here, it's not that simple. Presumably not the Council of Europe, but would that be the European Council, or the Council of the European Union?
The Commission can only propose legislation.
True, but saliently only the Commission can propose legislation.
The Parliament just gets to scribble "pretty-please" notes in the margins, and the Commission can reject the revisions and tell Parliament to stop being silly or lose the chance to pass the legislation at all.
there are many studies that show that consuming coffee can prevent certain diseases (alzheimer's, prostate cancer, etc.)
High leves of caffeine consumption is (probably) mildly protective against the symptoms of Parkinson's, not Alzheimers, and is far less effective than dopamine precursors. I'm aware of one study on mitigating severe prostate cancer (which is actually fairly rare), the results of which are disputed. What other diseases are you talking about? Or is it the caff talking?
Correct. The EU Parliament is almost completely irrelevant. It's the (unelected, unaccountable) EU Commission that actually controls regulation. And even then, it's generally only the UK that actually implements any of it; the rest of the EU either cherry picks aspects, or ignores it altogether.
I can actually hear the drool from the Ambulance Chasers dripping on the floor. "So, Mr Lab Monkey, you refused to do your job and perform the blood test for the deceased because...?"
Those weekend lab shifts are soon going to look pretty cheap next to the legal bills for negligence.
No joke. Caffeine is a vile drug: strongly physiologically addicting, toxic as hell (LD50 is fully half that of cocaine), with none of cocaine's mood enhancing qualities. It vies with nicotine for the title of Worst Drug Ever - all they do is addict you, make you feel bad when you don't get them, and poison you when you do.
People who are shocked, shocked, at nasty drug addicts and their foul habits will happily laugh about needing their daily dose of caffeine, utterly devoid of irony.
One day we'll treat caffeine and nicotine the same as cocaine. Not today, not tomorrow, probably not this century, but one day the Arbitrarily Selective War On Some Drugs will be a section in history courses.
What you are doing is typical of a pedant caught with your pants round your ankles, balls deep in your pooch, claiming that you're not "screwing" it, you're "making sweet love".
You, sir, said "effective monopoly", not "monopoly as defined by market share". Any reasonable person would conclude that having monopoly power gives you the effect of having a monopoly, irrespective of whatever market share you happen to have.
At this point, a reasonable person would agree that they'd tried to be far too clever by half, pull out of Fido, and wipe themselves off. I'm fascinated to see what you will do.
Slashdot Mirror
So my brother stands up in your classroom and hollers that you're a pedophile, and you can discipline him, but if I yell it in through the open window, you can't discipline me?
Well, I certainly admire your staunch defence of my rights there, Principle Gropesalot.
The clear intent of both students was to harass the teachers and cause disruption by undermining their authority. The publication was targeted at an audience (their peers), and the effect was felt inside the school.
At this point, I could be describing: posting on the intartubes; putting up posters near the school with the same content; waving a placard outside the school gates; standing outside the window and yelling.
In each case, the action was done outside the school, but the effects were felt inside it, and that is the salient point.
Schools must be able to respond to actions that effect them by disciplining or excluding the student. That's independent of any civil or criminal actions brought against the students by the libelled individuals, and the police and prosecution services.
Can we seriously countenance that a school can discipline or exclude a student for standing up in a classroom and yelling that Principal Peterson is a kiddie fiddler, but that it can't take action if the student moves three feet and yells the accusation in through the open window?
If so, then schools might as well hand out copies of Lord of the Flies as their conduct rules.
Count 49 is an assertion of facts, not a claim for relief.
They successfully claimed: Tortious Interference With Contract; Contributory Copyright Infringement; Vicarious Copyright Infringement.
They failed in their claims of: Violation of the Digital Millennium; Trademark Infringement; Unfair Competition (where they claimed to have been damaged but couldn't prove any damages); Unjust Enrichment (where they did attempt to claim lost revenues, but only because - they said, but could not prove - people capped and left, not because Blizzard chose to ban them, as the GP asserted).
So, OK, little from column A, little from column B. The core issue remains that of ownership and Title 117; just about everything else is a distraction.
If I had to call it, I've have given them claim 4, the DMCA violation, since that's the more pertinent legislation.
Fair enough on the tortuous interference, but that's small beer compared to the ownership and copyright issues.
MDY shouldn't have to make any argument regarding whether the RAM copy is "authorized" or not, since Title 117 disallows copyright claims against the owner.
Note carefully that Blizzard's argument isn't against Title 117, it's that their EULA means that the purchaser doesn't "own" the copy that they bought, and so the enjoys no Title 117 protection. That's the significant precedent here.
Let's party like it's 1995! Again!
Slightly less cynically, isn't this (in like-for-like terms) trading a general purpose CPU core for a specialised GPU one? It's not like we'll get more bang for our buck, we'll just get more floating point bangs, and fewer integer ones.
I'll choose Microsoft for an example, although this sort of boilerplate is fairly standard. I quote from the license terms for Microsoft Office:
And many other restrictions.
So Microsoft can (successfully, in the Central District of California) sue you for copyright infringement the moment you load Office into RAM after: fixing their product for them; using it for any purpose that is "against the law" (which law?); borrowing it from anyone; buying a 2nd hand copy.
You think that's ridiculous? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California doesn't think so. They think that the EULA gives Microsoft exactly that right.
This is not hyperbole or speculation; this is now established case law in that District (pending appeal).
You don't think Microsoft would ever exercise this power? OK, pick a different name then. Adobe. Apple. SCO. Choose your poison.
Which may be relevant to the tortious interference with a contract action, but is utterly irrelevant to the copyright violation action.
That would have been bizarre if they'd done it, but they didn't.
It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM is a copyright violation.
Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?
Oh, pfft to you. AT&T will just lower the SUPAR SEKRIT acceptable usage cap until they've kicked everyone off the "unlimited" plan. A child could see it coming.
Beyond all reasonable doubt. Let's not forget that.
And the email was a lot less rude than AT&T's bait-and-switch. Abusive actions speak a lot louder than words.
Say, by any chance did they sign up for an "unlimited" plan with a "reasonable use" caveat? You know, it's "unlimited" up until you hit the limit, which is entirely up to AT&T and not guaranteed by the contract. So it's 5GB this month. Next month it's 3GB. Then 1GB. Then you're a filthy resource hogging parasite if you use your "unlimited" connection to download a couple of email headers, and AT&T exercise their reserved right to terminate your contract. That sort of plan?
Fair point, but the reason that mechanical measurements are usually given as evidence is that the witness is impeachable. When it's your job to stop people from speeding, you're going to see speeders everywhere. Subjective opinion cannot, axiomatically, be objective.
Mmm. I was about to go off on a rant about how commercial publishers are in the business of selling stories, not reporting significant truths, when I remembered that sometimes the two overlap.
Mind you, "independent" doesn't mean unbiased. Even notionally non-commercial entities like the BBC show a strong bias in their reporting - the BBC really is stuffed with champaign socialists and middle class activists. 90% of "news" is press releases with an editorial slant, and half of the rest is inane vox populi. Still, there's that last 5%, which just wouldn't have the same impact posted on AngryCitizenJournalist.blogspot.com
Surely the issue is recognizing and protecting the distinction between pure humans and all genetic freaks?
Hint to the Legacy Media: that's a question you should be asking the namby-pamby wishy-washy liberal OH Senate.
Not a bad rant, but in a fiat economy, money is essentially a fiction. A trillion-dollars is no more meaningful a figure than a hojillion dollars.
What's significant is assets - the housing bubble which you lament left us with plenty of cheap real estate, which is a good thing - and work: whether people do it, what they do, and how efficiently they do it.
There are plenty of Americans who could be working on manned space exploration. If they're not doing that, what would you suggest they do instead? Till the fields? Watch Oprah re-runs all day while collecting welfare?
We can afford manned space travel. We can even afford government funded space travel. The only question is what we give up to free up the people to work on it. I'd say giving up Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good start.
Now, now, this is the EU here, it's not that simple. Presumably not the Council of Europe, but would that be the European Council, or the Council of the European Union?
True, but saliently only the Commission can propose legislation.
The Parliament just gets to scribble "pretty-please" notes in the margins, and the Commission can reject the revisions and tell Parliament to stop being silly or lose the chance to pass the legislation at all.
High leves of caffeine consumption is (probably) mildly protective against the symptoms of Parkinson's, not Alzheimers, and is far less effective than dopamine precursors. I'm aware of one study on mitigating severe prostate cancer (which is actually fairly rare), the results of which are disputed. What other diseases are you talking about? Or is it the caff talking?
Correct. The EU Parliament is almost completely irrelevant. It's the (unelected, unaccountable) EU Commission that actually controls regulation. And even then, it's generally only the UK that actually implements any of it; the rest of the EU either cherry picks aspects, or ignores it altogether.
I can actually hear the drool from the Ambulance Chasers dripping on the floor. "So, Mr Lab Monkey, you refused to do your job and perform the blood test for the deceased because...?"
Those weekend lab shifts are soon going to look pretty cheap next to the legal bills for negligence.
Well, he's probably jonesing for his fix.
No joke. Caffeine is a vile drug: strongly physiologically addicting, toxic as hell (LD50 is fully half that of cocaine), with none of cocaine's mood enhancing qualities. It vies with nicotine for the title of Worst Drug Ever - all they do is addict you, make you feel bad when you don't get them, and poison you when you do.
People who are shocked, shocked, at nasty drug addicts and their foul habits will happily laugh about needing their daily dose of caffeine, utterly devoid of irony.
One day we'll treat caffeine and nicotine the same as cocaine. Not today, not tomorrow, probably not this century, but one day the Arbitrarily Selective War On Some Drugs will be a section in history courses.
What you are doing is typical of a pedant caught with your pants round your ankles, balls deep in your pooch, claiming that you're not "screwing" it, you're "making sweet love".
You, sir, said "effective monopoly", not "monopoly as defined by market share". Any reasonable person would conclude that having monopoly power gives you the effect of having a monopoly, irrespective of whatever market share you happen to have.
At this point, a reasonable person would agree that they'd tried to be far too clever by half, pull out of Fido, and wipe themselves off. I'm fascinated to see what you will do.
Putting "Not for human consumption" on the bottles?
Yes, exactly. What, you think that's unpossible? There's a legion of nerds out here who will prove you wrong.